DRBC receives nearly 9,000 submissions on fracking ban proposal

Kyle Bagenstose @KyleBagenstose

Tuesday

Apr 10, 2018 at 6:08 PMApr 10, 2018 at 6:08 PM

Public comment on the controversial proposal closed March 30.

With public comment closed on a controversial fracking ban proposal for the Delaware River basin, regulators must now tackle an arduous task: combing through nearly 9,000 submissions received over the past four months.

“It’s going to take some time,” said Peter Eschbach, spokesman for the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC).

The proposed regulations are among the most controversial in years put forth by the DRBC, an interstate regulatory group composed of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware and the federal government. Introduced last fall, the proposal calls for the banning of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — in the basin. The process involves injecting highly pressurized fluids underground to crack up rocks and release natural gas deposits.

Fracking arrived in Pennsylvania about a decade ago, leading to a boom that has made the state the nation’s second-highest producer of natural gas, but also caused concerns about pollution of the environment and drinking water. Eastern Pennsylvania has been shielded from any drilling since the DRBC declined to pass any regulations in 2011, creating a de facto moratorium.

Enter last fall, when the commission put forth updated proposals that would ban fracking in the basin — a measure long sought by environmentalists — but allow for the disposal of treated wastewater and extraction of river water for fracking operations outside the basin.

Now that public comment has concluded, even the number of comments submitted is subject to controversy. The DRBC’s website states it received 8,687 online submissions and 227 oral comments.

But on Tuesday, the Bristol Borough-based Delaware Riverkeeper Network blasted the numbers as misleading, claiming a network of anti-fracking groups submitted “at least 40,000” comments to the organization.

“This discrepancy is due to the fact that the DRBC counted thousands of individual comments submitted by members of the organizations as a single comment," the Riverkeepers wrote in a statement.

Eschbach said this charge is untrue, and that DRBC staff technically look at each response as a “submission,” which could contain any number of individual “comments.”

Using a software system called SmartComment, staff mark down and catalogue each time a comment is made in a submission.

“We’re committed to making sure that everyone’s voice is heard," Eschbach said.

SmartComment does recognize form letters and automatically condenses them into a single bucket, saving staff from analyzing each one, Eschbach said. But he added staff still keep a tally of how many such submissions it receives, and offered a single submission that included a petition of about 20,000 names as an example.

Eschbach said commission staff have yet to count how many total comments have been received, which will only come after each submission is analyzed.

A review by this news organization of the last 100 submissions received ahead of the March 30 public input deadline showed a range of responses. About 62 percent said they wanted a full ban on all fracking-related activities, while another 12 percent said they opposed fracking generally. About 19 percent said they believed the DRBC proposals are unfair to the drilling industry and wanted the regulations withdrawn, while just 7 percent said they favored the regulations as currently proposed.

In addition to a more rigorous review of comments, also time consuming for the DRBC will be responding to the submissions. Eschbach said commission staff will have to respond to each type of comment, potentially after consulting with subject matter experts within the organization or even conducting new research.

The commission’s findings will be summarized in a “comment response document” that will be presented to the DRBC’s five representatives. Eschbach says that report will generalize how many comments were received in favor of each particular opinion, although it may not include the exact numbers. It will also include any changes to the proposal recommended by agency staff.

Ultimately, the decision will be a political one. The governors of Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware already voted to propose the regulations, meaning one would need a change of heart, or calculus, for the regulations to take a different path.

Groups on both sides of the debate used closing of public comment as an opportunity to reiterate their stance. In a press release, the pro-drilling industry group Marcellus Shale Coalition said the regulations violated the U.S. Constitution and lambasted the politics of the process.

“The proposed ban would represent the epitome of an illegal taking” of property owners’ mineral rights, the coalition argued. “(And) it is clear that a majority of commissioners have already made up their political minds on this matter.”

The coalition also argued drilling could be done safely, claiming the industry has a 97 percent compliance rate with environmental regulations in the state and has spent “hundreds of millions” of dollars on environmental safeguards.

“Pennsylvania’s unconventional shale gas industry has a demonstrated track record of operating in a manner that protects our shared environment,” the release said.

Groups such as the Philadelphia-based environmental nonprofit PennFuture, on the other hand, argued in favor of a complete ban.

“The risks on water resources by fracking are well known,” wrote Abigal M. Jones, staff attorney. “The commission has the authority and duty to protect the important water resources and should adopt the proposed ban to fulfill that duty.”

Among the proponents of a ban are the Newtown Township supervisors, who recently voted 4-1 to submit a comment calling for a ban of all fracking-related activities. But the town is also considering preemptive action, with supervisors saying they may dust off a proposal to amend the township’s joint municipal zoning ordinance, which it shares with Upper Makefield and Wrightstown.

The amendment would establish "oil and gas drilling, processing and transport" as a new land use, requiring conditional approval for fracking. It would also only allow drilling in Wrightstown's rural industrial and quarry/agriculture districts, not on any property subject to a conservation easement or open space restrictions.

Newtown Township Supervisor John Mack said board members recently had discussed resuming work on that amendment, though it has not yet been placed on any planning commission meeting agenda.

The proposed amendment came under review at a January 2017 community meeting, where attorney Jordan Yeager, of Doylestown Township's Curtin & Heefner law fim, discussed its pros and cons as a way to regulate gas and oil drilling at the municipal level.

Yeager noted in a letter to the Riverkeepers that officials in the jointure municipalities should not approve the amendment without first revising it, saying a lack of scientific due diligence could render the municipalities vulnerable to legal challenges under the state's environmental laws.

Amendments to the joint zoning ordinance cannot go into effect until all three municipalities approve them.

Wrightstown supervisors have considered the fracking jointure amendment on and off for the past two years, said Chester Pogonowski, the board's chairman. Right now, he said, there is no consensus and there is no scheduled discussion.

The amendment has not yet been in front of Upper Makefield's board of supervisors, said Chairman Tom Cino. Some environmental groups have been critical of the proposal, saying it could signal to drillers that the township is open for business.

Staff writer Thomas Friestad contributed to this story.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.